What are the connotations of "Ki Satzur al Ir"?
Rashi (in Bereishis, 2:19): It means 'When you suppress or conquer a town'.
Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It means 'When you besiege a town".
What are the implications of "Yamim Rabim?
Rashi: It implies three days - "Yamim" implies two, 1 and "Rabim" comes to add one more (to teach us that one is not permitted to lay siege to an enemy town within three days of Shabbos ? Sifri).
Rashbam: It implies a long time, with the result that one needs to cut down trees in order to build a fortification and ramps.
Targum Yonasan: It implies a full week - 'with the intention of capturing it on Shabbos'. 2
What is the significance of three days?
Rashi #1: It teaches us that one may not lay siege to a town within three days of Shabbos'. 1
Rashi #2: It teaches us that one offers the enemy peace terms two 2 or three days before going into battle.
See Sifsei Chachamim and Torah Temimah, note 55.
Rashi: Like we find in Shmuel 2, 1:1. Gur Aryeh: Normally, we offer three days before, but when this is not possible - where the enemy will call others to help, two days will suffice.
What sort of war is the Pasuk discussing?
Rashi: It is talking about a Milchemes ha'Reshus (an optional war), not a Milchemes Mitzvah. 1
See Sifsei Chachamim.
What are the implications of the word "Le'safsah"?
Sifri: It implies that the prohibition applies only if the intention is to capture the town, but not if one intends to destroy it - in which case it is permitted to cut down the fruit-trees. 1
What constitutes "Lo Sashchis"?
Destroying a fruit-tree - or rendering useless anything that is initially useful falls under the category of 'Bal Tashchis'. 1 (Consequently, even someone who tears K'riyah on a Meis more than is necessary 2 transgresses ? Bava Kama, 91b). 3
See Torah Temimah, note 57, who elaborates.
Torah Temimah: One Tefach.
Shabbos, 129a: However, Ba'al Tashchis (where a personal loss is involved) overrides Ba'al Tashchis of one's trees. Hence Rabah justified chopping-up a stool as a cure. See also Torah Temimah, note 60 and refer to 20:20:1.2:1.
Why does the Torah insert both "Lo Sashchis ... " and "ve'Oso Lo Sichros"?
What kind of trees does the Pasuk forbid destroying?
Rashi: It refers to all fruit-trees that grow on the outskirts of the town.
Ramban: It refers to destroying fruit-trees for the purpose of laying siege - assuming barren trees are available. 1
Rashbam: It refers to fruit-trees that grow far away 2 from the town under siege.
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Rosh: It refers to all fruit-trees except for those among which people can hide to ambush the besiegers.
Ramban: To prevent the inhabitants from gathering wood, from hiding in the forest, from using it for surprise attacks or to protect the town against catapult rocks - since It was common to ruin the city and its surrounding area in former times. See Melachim 2, 3:19. Ramban: Otherwise, it is permitted.
Rashbam: Since trees close to the town would be used by the town's residents to hide in them ? in which case the Rashbam' answer is basically the same as answer #4.
What are the implications of "Lindo'ach Garzen"?
Seforno: It implies that the prohibition is confined to where one is destroying the tree in order to harm the town's inhabitants, and not for any tactical reasons. 1
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) phrase "Ki mimenu Sochel"?
Refer to 20:19:7:1.
Sifri: To add an Asei, so that someone who cuts down a fruit-tree transgtresses a Lo Sa'aseh and an Asei. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 59, citing the Ramban.
What does the Torah mean when it writes "Ki ha'Adam Eitz ha'Sadeh ... "?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: The Torah is asking 'Is a tree of the field perhaps a human-being - that it needs to be chastised with pangs of hunger and thirst like the inhabitants of the town? So why do you need to destroy it'?
Ramban (citing the Ibn Ezra) and Hadar Zekenim: The Pasuk is missing the word 'Chayei' 1 and therefore reads 'Ki Chayei ha'Adam Eitz ha'Sadeh'. 2
Seforno: 'Is a tree of the field a human-being that the town needs to come under siege through it, in order to force their hand to surrender to you? 3
Da'as Zekenim: The Pasuk must be inverted. What it means is that trees are for man to eat, and not to destroy them in order to create a siege.
Oros ha'Gra (p.46, citing Agadah of Rabah bar bar Chanah Akrokasa): "Eitzah" are those who support the Chachamim. "Mimenu Socheil" ? the entire world is sustained due to Torah. "Ki ha'Adam Eitz ha'Sadeh" ? the Chacham is sustained through supporters of Torah; they will not be cut off. What is not Eitz Ma'achal ? does not support Torah, "Oso Sashchis", he will be cut off in this world and in the world to come.
Lev Eliyahu (Bereishis p.115): As a tree is connected to its root, it blossoms and produce fruits. If it is disconnected from its root, it dries and does not produce fruits. So man needs life and warmth in Avodas Hashem. If not, he is a Rasha!
Ta'anis, 7a: Comparing a Talmid-Chacham to a tree, 4 the current two Pesukim are teaching us that, if a Talmid-Chacham is decent (worthy to learn from him), then one should learn from him and not abandon him, but if he is not, one should abandon him. 5
Ramban: Similar to "Ki (Chayei) Nefesh hu Choveil", in Ki Seitzei, 24:6. And the prohibition applies under all circumstances ? though the Gemara in Bava in Bava Kama 91b, permits it if there is no alternative ? Refer to 20:19:4:2*.
And, since you will ultimately eat from it, you are not permitted to destroy your own source of livelihood, even in order to create a siege. It therefore follows that if one benefits more by cutting down the tree, it is permitted - since the person is more important than the tre. See Torah Temimah citing Shabbos, 129a, and note 57, where he elaborates. See also note 60. See also Torah Temimah, note 62, DH 've'Al Derech ha'Peshat'.
As the Pasuk writs in Tehilim 92:13 "Tzadik ka'Tamar Yifrach".
See Torah Temimah, note 62, who elaborates.
What are the implications of "... ki Mimenu Socheil"?
Ramban, Seforno and Rashbam: It implies that, since you are bound to be victorious and will ultimately eat their fruit, you may not cut them down (merely to harm the inhabitants, bearing in mind that chopping down the trees will not force them to surrender ? Seforno). 1
Rosh and Da'as Zekenim (in Pasuk 20, both citing Ta'anis 7a): It refers to a Talmid Chacham. If he is respectable, eat (learn) from him; if not, cut [yourself off from learning from] him. Similarly, if a Talmid is not repectable, do not let him stand in front of you to learn from you. 2
Refer to 20:19:6:6.
What would one gain by cutting down the trees that surround the town?
Rashbam: Refer to 20:19:1:2 & 20:19:4:2*.
Targum Yonasan: It would enable the attacking army to encircle the town.
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk which prohibits destroying fruit-trees with the Pasuk in Melachim 2 3:19, where, during the war against Mo'av, Elisha commanded them to destroy all the trees?
Rashi (in Melachim 2 3:19, citing Bamidbar Rabah): That is was Hashem - who detests Mo'av -commanded us in Ki Seitzei, 23:7 "Lo Sidrosh Shelomam ve'Tovasam le'Olam", which includes taking from them "Tovasam" - their trees (whereas "Lo Sashchis" pertains to other nations - Moshav Zekenim).
R'dak (in Melachim 2, 3:19): According to the simple meaning of the Pasuk, the prohibition applies exclusively to the time of the siege - even though a tradition always forbids it. Perhaps the command in Melachim was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a once-off ruling).
